This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SpiritualEbionite (talk | contribs) at 23:57, 10 November 2006 (→Archives). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:57, 10 November 2006 by SpiritualEbionite (talk | contribs) (→Archives)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Ebionites received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ebionites article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
Archives
Previous discussions can be found at:
Only someone wanting to hide Wikipedialawyering and the real root of the incivility involved in working on this artical would be activly reverting ongoing discussion of the Ebionite artical into four seperate archives as to place things people say in obscure places and out of order with the time line and topic they were first posted in. I am not saying names and and in no way attacking anyone. Just for the record this edit first appeared on the ebionite talk page long after the Spiritual Ebionites that were mis-named neo-Ebionites section was removed from the artical. That the spiritual Ebionite section was removed and susposed resolved was the reason given to seperate it from the main archive But ongoing discussions on the Ebionite artical that present problems to the POV dominating the artical are still presently being revverted to mis-maned neo-Ebionte section. The truth has nothing to hide so why have so many highly regarded Misplaced Pages Admins that have been eyeing this artical not taken action regarding these practices?SpiritualEbionite 23:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Towards Featured Article status
Before we push the article to Peer review - a step that should always be taken before the Featured Articles Candidacy step - , we need to 1) preserve a neutral point of view ; and 2) extensively provided references for every paragraph in this article following Misplaced Pages:Citing sources guidelines. --Loremaster 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
About See also
According to a Misplaced Pages rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in See also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Shalom Loremaster,
- Articals explaining offical Misplaced Pages policy have "see also" sections.NazireneMystic 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I know. However, I have a spoken to Misplaced Pages administrators about this issue and I've confirmed that this rule of thumb is an unofficial policy that is highly recommended. --Loremaster 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Toward Peer Review
I am now satisfied with the 12:03, 10 September 2006 version of the article. --Loremaster 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I am also satisfied with the 12:03, 10 September 2006 version of the article. I will initiate the peer review process. Thanks Loremaster, for your efforts to make this article into a candidate for featured article status. Ovadyah 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're welcome. --Loremaster 19:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I will continue to make some minor edits to the article but nothing that will change it's structure or core content. --Loremaster 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Ebionites
- I have just made a series of suggestions here Slrubenstein | Talk 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. --Loremaster 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Loremaster I suggest we reserve this page for disussions relating to peer review and follow-up work resulting from the peer review. I suggest moving the last two sections discussing editorial changes made prior to the peer review to Archive 2. I would move the rant about changes to the archived pages to Archive 1, where it can be combined with all the other POV material. Ovadyah 02:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Done. --Loremaster 02:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Its interesting that actual discussion about changes to the artical you call rants. then archiving it by moving it to a different section only makes for confusion. Do smoke screens and confusion work in your favor?NazireneMystic 00:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Whether they are rants or not, I only archive discussions that have ended and disputes have been resolved. Anyone can easily find and read the archives so my acts cannot be interpreted as some attempt to limit your freedom of speech. --Loremaster 16:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The peer review has been archived. It contains several ideas we can use to improve the Ebionites article. --Loremaster 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Category: